There appears to be so much wrong about the assumptions about the G3s being affordable.
First, the sources I have give the estimated cost of the G3s being 37.5 M GBP for the 1920 estimates. Actual cost may have been much higher. The actual cost of the Rodney and the Nelson was 15 M GBP. So each G3 was at least 25% more expensive than each Nelson.
As to the WTRE, post a link to it or a proper citation and I will read it. Then I will offer a more in depth comment on it than I offer now. However, the conclusion that folks here assert the WTRE reaches--that the United Kingdom could have afforded a far greater naval build up in the 1920s and the economy of the UK would have benefit from such a build up---seems to fly against main stream economic history view and main stream fiscal policy views.
Historically, as I noted in the previous thread, in 1920 the United Kingdom economy was in contraction as bad as in the great depression. The fiscal policy logic that a naval building program would save the economy seems about as plausible as the Laffer curve. Generally, economics teaches that military spending is a poor way of stimulating an economy as it has a far lower multiplier than spending on capital goods or consumer goods. This compounded by the fact that military spending competes directly with capital and consumer spending--the old guns v. butter trade-off. Now if the WTRE folks found some way against this, I would be surprised. More than likely than not, a major revision in economic policy would have been required for the United Kingdom.
Such an argument would of course be absurd as it requires 20/20 foresight by policymakers and politicians of the United Kingdom in 1920s. If you assert that if the government of the United Kingdom could have afforded the G3s by making major change in economic policies requires such a change in the psychology and knowledge of the people involved as to be ASB. The changes in economic policy required for the government would be heresy to most of the government and unbelievable. This is the economic equivalent of The Foresight War. You might as say that the United States and the United Kingdom could have fielded world beater equivalent to the M-26 and Centurion in 1939 because the basic theoretical underpinnings were all researched and understood and the ability. That's the degree of hand waving required. Or more to point, state that if proper fiscal and monetary policy had been in place the great depression could have been prevented. To hand wave away the bad decisions made a government is as ASB as technical limitations. In an ideal world, if politicians and policy makers had a better understanding of economics, sure. But this is not an ideal world, and policy makers and politicians often have a poor understanding of economics.
First, the sources I have give the estimated cost of the G3s being 37.5 M GBP for the 1920 estimates. Actual cost may have been much higher. The actual cost of the Rodney and the Nelson was 15 M GBP. So each G3 was at least 25% more expensive than each Nelson.
As to the WTRE, post a link to it or a proper citation and I will read it. Then I will offer a more in depth comment on it than I offer now. However, the conclusion that folks here assert the WTRE reaches--that the United Kingdom could have afforded a far greater naval build up in the 1920s and the economy of the UK would have benefit from such a build up---seems to fly against main stream economic history view and main stream fiscal policy views.
Historically, as I noted in the previous thread, in 1920 the United Kingdom economy was in contraction as bad as in the great depression. The fiscal policy logic that a naval building program would save the economy seems about as plausible as the Laffer curve. Generally, economics teaches that military spending is a poor way of stimulating an economy as it has a far lower multiplier than spending on capital goods or consumer goods. This compounded by the fact that military spending competes directly with capital and consumer spending--the old guns v. butter trade-off. Now if the WTRE folks found some way against this, I would be surprised. More than likely than not, a major revision in economic policy would have been required for the United Kingdom.
Such an argument would of course be absurd as it requires 20/20 foresight by policymakers and politicians of the United Kingdom in 1920s. If you assert that if the government of the United Kingdom could have afforded the G3s by making major change in economic policies requires such a change in the psychology and knowledge of the people involved as to be ASB. The changes in economic policy required for the government would be heresy to most of the government and unbelievable. This is the economic equivalent of The Foresight War. You might as say that the United States and the United Kingdom could have fielded world beater equivalent to the M-26 and Centurion in 1939 because the basic theoretical underpinnings were all researched and understood and the ability. That's the degree of hand waving required. Or more to point, state that if proper fiscal and monetary policy had been in place the great depression could have been prevented. To hand wave away the bad decisions made a government is as ASB as technical limitations. In an ideal world, if politicians and policy makers had a better understanding of economics, sure. But this is not an ideal world, and policy makers and politicians often have a poor understanding of economics.